HARI SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Ludhiana dated 12.4.2005 vide which his complaint has been dismissed.

(2.) THIS appeal was received by post. When notice was sent to the appellant that he should come present on a date fixed for motion hearing or he should engage a Counsel, he wrote a letter that he was not in a position to engage a lawyer because of paucity of funds. In these circumstances, we had requested Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant and assist us in this matter.

(3.) WE have heard the Counsel for the parties. The complainant had challenged the issuance of a demand notice by the Punjab State Electricity Board (in short "PSEB") by way of a bill dated 19.12.2003 wherein an amount of Rs. 33,089 was shown as sundry charges and Rs. 3,655 as surcharge. The electricity meter from the premises of the complainant was removed on 22.1.2003 and was tested in the M.E. Lab on 3.6.2003. The M.E. Lab report shows that there was a tampering with the meter and was running slow. It was showing 40% less energy being consumed than the actual consumption. It was the case of the PSEB that the aforesaid demand was raised on the basis of the M.E. Lab report. The District Forum after appreciating the evidence and the arguments dismissed the complaint.